The Equation » Fossil Fuelshttp://blog.ucsusa.org
a blog on independent science + practical solutionsFri, 31 Jul 2015 22:13:31 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3The EPA’s Clean Power Plan is History in the Makinghttp://blog.ucsusa.org/the-epas-clean-power-plan-is-history-in-the-making-820
http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-epas-clean-power-plan-is-history-in-the-making-820#commentsWed, 29 Jul 2015 17:50:47 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37676“[People] make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.” —Harry S. Truman

The Obama Administration is set to release the final version of the Clean Power Plan shortly. The eyes of the world will be on it, and the stakes are high.

The Clean Power Plan, issued in draft form last summer, imposes the first-ever federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions from our nation’s power plants. With power plant emissions accounting for about 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, reductions in this sector represent our “lowest hanging fruit” because we have proven and cost-effective alternatives to fossil-fuel based electric generation. The Plan gives states the opportunity to build on policies that are already in place and working at the state level, such as regional cap and trade programs, renewable energy standards, and energy efficiency investments. It will push those states that haven’t yet adopted these and other policies to do more.

By raising the EPA’s renewables target, we can achieve a 40 percent reduction in power plant emissions below 2005 levels by 2030.

Why the Clean Power Plan has global significance

The world is watching because a strong Clean Power Plan is one of the essential elements of a successful climate agreement at the worldwide summit in Paris this December. The United States has committed to reduce its economy-wide emissions of heat trapping gases 26-28 percent by 2025, a commitment that has galvanized other countries to offer ambitious reduction pledges of their own.

The Clean Power Plan is key to the U.S. pledge for two reasons: first, it accounts for a major portion of our pledged reduction; and second, it is a legally binding regulation that needs no additional congressional authorization to become effective. Thus, the world is literally counting on the Clean Power Plan as one of the primary ways the United States—one of the world’s largest carbon emitters—will reduce its share of heat trapping gases.

Strengthening the Clean Power Plan

When the draft Clean Power Plan was issued last summer, UCS praised the Obama Administration for taking an important first step. But we also contended that the draft plan was too modest, particularly on the issue of the role of renewable energy in cutting emissions. We submitted technical analysis, echoed by many others, showing that we can get much steeper and cost-effective reductions than EPA had assumed in the draft proposal with a bolder expansion of renewable energy. This is true in part because renewable energy has dropped precipitously in price, coming down even since the draft rule was issued. We and many others also demonstrated that a higher penetration of renewable energy will bring a host of other ancillary benefits, including job creation(because installing solar panels and wind turbines can’t be outsourced); a hedge against volatile fossil fuel prices (because wind and solar power costs are stable and predictable); and clean air.

So, one key element that I will be looking for is whether the EPA heeds our recommendations to build a bigger role for renewables into the final plan.

UCS also argued that the overall goal—power plant emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030—was too modest. We are already halfway there nationally (power plant emissions in 2014 were about 15 percent lower than 2005). A plan that calls for the United States to stay along our current course of incremental reduction is simply not sufficient to address the urgency of the climate threat we face. By raising the renewables target as UCS recommended, we can achieve a 40 percent reduction in power plant emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. There are other ways of doing even better, such as a more ambitious deployment of energy efficiency.

So, another key element I will be looking for is whether the EPA plan calls for greater emissions reductions by 2030. Doing so will demonstrate the Obama Administration’s resolve to meet the upper bounds of its 26-28 percent by 2025 pledge, and encourage other countries to push toward the outward edges of their ambition.

Finally, during the public comment period a number of states asked the EPA to lengthen the deadlines for compliance. Our analysis indicates that such an extension is not needed, as states are already on track to cut their emissions through actions they’ve put in place like state renewable energy and energy efficiency standards, and coal plant retirements. If the EPA does decide to delay compliance timelines, I’ll be looking for assurance that the overall emission reductions achieved by the rule stay strong, early action by states is incentivized, and any delay won’t jeopardize the U.S.’s 2025 international commitment of a 26-28% reduction in economy-wide emissions.

A historic legacy of climate action

Historians may well look back and conclude that President Obama’s strong leadership on climate action is the most important long-term legacy of his administration. But a strong finalized Clean Power Plan is essential if his administration is to be remembered for the kind of transformative leadership President Truman so eloquently described.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-epas-clean-power-plan-is-history-in-the-making-820/feed2ALEC’s Annual Meeting to Feature More Attacks on Successful Clean Energy Policieshttp://blog.ucsusa.org/alecs-annual-meeting-to-feature-more-attacks-on-successful-clean-energy-policies-813
http://blog.ucsusa.org/alecs-annual-meeting-to-feature-more-attacks-on-successful-clean-energy-policies-813#commentsTue, 21 Jul 2015 18:44:21 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37568UPDATE (July 27, 3:30pm): Stephen Moore, a member of ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Board, dropped a whopper during one of the few sessions at ALEC’s annual meeting that was open to select reporters. “The biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming,” Moore said before going on to engage in a personal attack on scientists. Learn more.

This week the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is holding its annual meeting in San Diego and one look at the agenda reveals this fossil fuel-funded front group remains bent on preventing the nation’s transition to a clean energy economy. With the EPA set to finalize its Clean Power Plan in the next few weeks, ALEC is frantically ramping up efforts to obstruct and roll back policies that support renewables and efficiency and curb carbon emissions. Here’s a quick guide on what to look out for.

ALEC and their fossil fuel allies also continued their long history of failure in attempting to roll back renewable energy and climate policies in 2015. For example, ALEC’s attempts to obstruct implementation of the Clean Power Plan—the first-ever national limits on global warming pollution from power plants—failed in 21 out of 22 states.

Meanwhile, many states continued to push for new or stronger renewable energy polices. Hawaii committed to 100 percent renewables by 2045, while Vermont joined the ranks of states with a mandatory RES, and New York is setting its sights on 50 percent renewables by 2030. The California legislature is also moving toward a 50 percent renewables target, and at least 10 other states have considered expanded RES policies.

Doubling down on deceit and deception

One might think ALEC would learn its lesson and listen to a public that strongly supports policies requiring more use of renewable energy sources and limiting global warming pollution from power plants. But that has not happened.

Instead, the folks at ALEC are using their annual meeting to double down on their deceptive tactics.

“The Environmental Litigation Act.” This cut-and-paste bill would allow for “gifts, grants, and donations” to an official state fund used for the sole purpose of researching and pursuing frivolous lawsuits filed by states to obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, or any other federal law that causes “detriment…to industries.” It’s not hard to guess who would be making these “gifts, grants, and donations,” given ALEC’s usual clientele.

“Resolution Concerning Special Markets for Direct Solar Power Sales.” The stated purpose of this resolution is to oppose removing market barriers that would allow solar providers to sell electricity directly to homes and businesses, empowering solar to compete on a more level playing field with traditional electric utilities. For an organization that claims to stand for free markets and oppose government “picking winners and losers,” this gem of misinformation is particularly ironic.

“State Power Accountability and Reliability Charter.” Here is another cut-and-paste bill that would tie the hands of state environmental and air quality regulators in red tape, by inhibiting their ability to incorporate renewable energy, energy efficiency, or even natural gas, into state compliance plans for meeting the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

“Act Providing Incentives for Carbon Reductions Investment.” I wrote about this wolf in sheep’s clothing when it popped up in the agenda for an earlier ALEC meeting. In summary, this bill is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine state RES’s by restricting investments in real renewables, such as wind and solar, and allowing for non-renewable energy technologies to be used for compliance.

On the bright side

In an agenda that’s otherwise laden with clean energy policy attacks, there is one silver lining for those who have been shining a light on ALEC’s closed-door convenings of corporate lobbyists and state legislators. So far at least, ALEC’s annual meeting agenda does not include any obvious direct attacks on climate science—a major departure from the blatant disinformation doled out at ALEC’s summer and winter meetings last year. But we will be watching for any last minute appearances by climate deniers.

Let’s build on that success, and continue to push back on ALEC’s ongoing attempts to undermine the nation’s transition to an affordable, reliable, and low-carbon energy future.

UPDATE (July 27, 3:30pm):Last week, I mentioned we would keep an eye out for disinformation about climate science at ALEC’s annual meeting. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, I have to report that Stephen Moore, a member of ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Board, dropped a whopper during one of the few sessions that was open to select reporters.

“The biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming,” Moore said before going on to engage in a personal attack on scientists.

The real hoax is the decades-long disinformation campaign against science perpetrated by special interest groups, including ALEC, and funded by fossil fuel interests. Last week’s ALEC meeting is case in point: we now know that the sponsors once again reflect a laundry list of oil, coal, and utility interests, including AEP, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.

You can join UCS in holding industry bad actors accountable for funding ALEC: click here to take action today.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/alecs-annual-meeting-to-feature-more-attacks-on-successful-clean-energy-policies-813/feed0How Do You Cut Carbon Emissions While Creating Jobs and Wealth? Ask the Northeasthttp://blog.ucsusa.org/rggi-benefits-northeast-812
http://blog.ucsusa.org/rggi-benefits-northeast-812#commentsTue, 21 Jul 2015 18:20:12 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37577Good climate change policies cut the emissions of heat-trapping gases, but the best ones do so at low cost while achieving other benefits at the same time. A new study confirms that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) falls into the “best” category.

As many readers know, RGGI limits carbon pollution from the power plants in nine New England and mid-Atlantic states. It is a “cap and trade” program that establishes an aggregate pool of “allowances” that give power plant owners the right to emit specific amounts of carbon based on the number of allowances they own. It is also an “auction and invest” program, in which the nine state governments auction off the allowances to the highest bidders, and then invest the proceeds to support measures to further reduce carbon emissions, such as through energy efficiency and renewable energy.

A respected consulting firm, The Analysis Group, just completed its second analysis of the RGGI program. This analysis tallied the costs and the benefits of the program for the years 2012-2014. Here are the main conclusions:

Carbon emissions from the nine states’ power plants are on track for a 50 percent reduction by 2020 compared to 2005 levels;

The reinvestment of auction proceeds to boost efficiency and renewables will save consumers approximately $460 million dollars from now until 2025, largely because energy efficiency investments reduce overall energy use and lower energy bills;

Because this region is an energy importer, placing a price on carbon and reinvesting the proceeds in efficiency and renewables allows these states to retain “energy dollars” that would otherwise be exported out of the region. The Analysis Group estimates that about $1.3 billion will be kept locally rather than exported thanks to the last three years of investments in efficiency and renewables from the program’s proceeds.

Keeping the energy dollars local also adds about 14,000 job years (the equivalent of 14,000 people having a job for a year), because the proceeds are being used for jobs that cannot be outsourced, such as putting solar panels on schools or retrofitting old leaky buildings.

These findings are consistent with the first Analysis Group study which examined RGGI during 2009-2011. Taken together, the Analysis Group finds that RGGI will add about 2.9 billion dollars to the nine states’ economies, while helping to cutting carbon pollution from power plants in half.

As the former chair of RGGI, I have long touted its potential benefits. So now I’m both happy and proud to note that six years of a well-documented track record is enough to confirm this fundamental fact: RGGI works.

So what is next for this program? In the short run, I expect other states will consider joining RGGI, or establishing similar regional programs of their own, as a cost-effective way to lower their carbon emissions and comply with the new EPA Clean Power Plan, slated to be finalized in the next few weeks.

But beyond that, the documented six-year success of RGGI should jumpstart a conversation about expanding RGGI to cover other high-emitting sectors of the economy, such as transportation. We know the program works and benefits the regional economy; it is time to build upon that success and expand the program to other economic sectors, as California and Quebec have already done, and as Ontario plans to do. And by making the program cover emissions throughout the economy (and not just from power plants), the region would also position itself for added benefits by linking with California, Quebec, and Ontario. As RGGI proves, there is strength in numbers.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/rggi-benefits-northeast-812/feed6Don’t Be Deceived by ALEC’s Special Interest Agendahttp://blog.ucsusa.org/dont-be-deceived-by-alecs-special-interest-agenda-811
http://blog.ucsusa.org/dont-be-deceived-by-alecs-special-interest-agenda-811#commentsTue, 21 Jul 2015 14:11:25 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37560When the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) arrives in San Diego on July 22 for its annual meeting, the agenda will include efforts to undermine clean energy and climate policies that are widely supported by the people of California. Yet the public won’t know what is discussed at the meeting because the doors will be closed to most media, despite the presence of lawmakers from around the country.

ALEC might promote limited government, but it is certainly not a proponent of open government. The group has a long history of blocking press access to its functions. In a widely shared video, an Atlanta television reporter was denied access in May to an ALEC conference between state legislators and corporate lobbyists. The reporter, however, learned from two legislators that ALEC gives state lawmakers free resort stays paid for by lobbyists while providing them with industry-friendly “model” legislation written by lobbyists. One state senator interviewed called ALEC “a corporate bill mill.”

A new report, “The Climate Deception Dossiers” by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), details how ALEC and some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies it counts among its members have actively misled the public and policymakers about the climate risks of fuel extraction despite repeated scientific warnings. UCS researchers chronicled the decades of deceit by reviewing internal documents related to ALEC and companies including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Shell that came to light through leaks, lawsuits, and Freedom of Information Act requests. The documents show that the corporate leaders long knew the realities of climate science—that their fossil fuel products were harmful to people and the planet—but still supported disinformation campaigns that actively denied or obfuscated the facts.

One of ALEC’s major priorities has been to attack climate science and dismantle state policies to reduce carbon pollution and accelerate the transition to clean energy, including the very policies that make California a climate leader. ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force convenes frequent backroom meetings in which state legislators are briefed with climate disinformation and lobbied by utility and fossil fuel interests, according to the UCS report.

These sort of deceptive tactics have led to public pressure on some major California tech companies to leave ALEC, which Google, Facebook, and Yahoo have done over the past year. As Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told NPR last September, “Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people…they’re just literally lying.”

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United States, follows a similar playbook as ALEC and shares some of the same members. In an attempt to weaken, delay, and defeat climate-related policies on the West Coast, WSPA funds so-called “astroturf” organizations that purport to advocate on behalf of drivers and taxpayers rather than oil companies. These front groups, with grassroots-sounding names such as the California Drivers Alliance, create an illusion of consumer backlash to the state’s climate and energy policies, but undermine true public discourse.

Recently, WSPA came out swinging against proposed legislation in California to reduce petroleum use. Under the guise of one if its front groups, it issued false threats on social media claiming that consumers would be faced with gas rationing and government limits on the miles they can drive if the legislation passes. Surely WSPA knows that the California Air Resources Board has no such authority and no proposed bills would give it to them.

Between January 2009 and September 2014, oil companies spent more than $26.9 million through WSPA directly lobbying in Sacramento to defeat the state’s groundbreaking climate policies aimed at achieving a sharp reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Chevron alone reported spending nearly $14 million.

None of this bodes well for democracy. ALEC calls itself “America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state lawmakers,” yet the top three speakers at this year’s meeting in San Diego are Republican presidential candidates with no Democrat in sight.

ALEC claims to stand for free-market principles, but nothing about it is free or principled when it enables corporations to dictate public policy.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/dont-be-deceived-by-alecs-special-interest-agenda-811/feed0Jaw-Dropping News in the Solar vs. Fossil Fuels Debatehttp://blog.ucsusa.org/solar-vs-fossil-fuels-810
http://blog.ucsusa.org/solar-vs-fossil-fuels-810#commentsMon, 20 Jul 2015 17:47:30 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37552You know the cliché about work that can be 59 minutes of boredom and one minute of white knuckle excitement and danger? In the electric power industry, this happens when a major power plant loses its connection to the grid, instantly and dramatically unbalancing the supply and demand of electricity. Blackouts follow if there isn’t an instant response.

Last week I had a similar exciting moment at a conference of utility commissioners, where I learned that a key grid reliability requirement during these emergencies has not been provided by new natural gas plants.

Assumptions are not always true

Throughout the electricity engineering community, there is an assumption that, when that kind of supply-demand imbalance incident happens, there will be an automatic response within 5-6 seconds from conventional (gas, coal, hydro) generators that stabilizes the power supply. How valid this assumption is matters, because it is used by practically every utility study and commentary aimed at highlighting limits to using renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel power plants. (See here, for example.)

The surprise when regulators learned of false reliability of gas plants. Credit: Memorial University

The assumed difference between conventional power plants has figured prominently in current debates about the adoption of renewable energy versus an over-reliance on natural gas and coal.

Surprised looks all around

But what if that assumption turned out to be wrong? In a thinly attended session on a Sunday at the summer meeting of NARUC, (the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) I attended, a representative from NERC (the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation) committee process made an astounding revelation, that this assumption has indeed been mistaken.

The reality is that a thousand gas-fired power plants built in the U.S. do not operate properly in white knuckle emergencies. In the discussion with regulatory staff, Troy Blalock, reliability expert at South Carolina Electric & Gas, explained how jaws hit the floor as NERC’s investigation into reliability questions found that all three of the gas generator manufacturers (GE, ABB, Siemens) predominant in the U.S. had for years been delivering equipment that fail to provide this “essential reliability service”. As word spread around the 3-day NARUC conference, this news caused the same speechless, open-mouth expression.

Fossils vs. Renewables

This new information has huge implications for debates about power plant retirements and the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. NERC has not been supportive of a transition away from coal and into wind and solar, but at least one of their key concerns has been based on this misunderstanding that gas plants can always respond to these emergencies while wind and solar can’t.

This revelation that U.S. grid reliability has been weakened by a thousand new gas-fired power plants negates the findings of several dramatic statements and studies that warn about impacts from increased use of renewables. California energy policy, FERC inquiries, and LBNL lab reports were all misled by the lack of this information that the gas-fired units are not contributing to frequency response during emergencies caused by sudden trips of large conventional generators.

Solar makes changes to improve reliability, and wind can do it too

Even more offensive to renewables advocates than the exaggerated, mistaken reliance on an assumed performance from gas plants, the power industry and media has repeated ad nauseum a story of German solar power equipment needing to change its control settings to make sure it helped, not hurt reliability—when all that time, the same thing was needed at gas-fired power plants.

As it happens, solar can make those changes, and has, a whole lot more quickly than gas plants. In Hawaii earlier this year, the solar industry successfully changed the control settings on 800,000 solar panel inverters through internet connections to make solar in Hawaii support frequency and voltage in similar emergencies.

Recognizing that grids need this service, a variety of wind turbine manufacturers have designs that provide the frequency response that is missing from the gas turbines (see here, here, here, and here, for example).

Perhaps the lack of incentives is the root of the problem

Because there is a lack of incentives for any generator to provide the frequency response we’ve been discussing, there hasn’t been a technology-neutral accounting of this service. It’s a win-win-win to fix this. We can do it in a way that leads to the grid of the future, rather than incorrectly relying on the grid of the past to maintain reliability.

Fixing the gas plants would be cheap

In last week’s session, NERC’s representative said that the cost to correct the mistake in controls at each of the gas-fired power plants is on the scale of the budget for coffee for the operators of these power plants. Despite the problem going unreported for 25 years, NERC suggested that a few memos, and no regulatory interventions, would be adequate to get the gas-fired fleet back up to expected reliability.

No mention was made by this representative of the bigger picture, and the inappropriate accusations over the years that wind and solar, rather than gas plants, are the cause of this problem. It’s time to set the record straight—and get back to our 59 minutes of boredom.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/solar-vs-fossil-fuels-810/feed7Exxon Responds to Revelation that Company Recognized Climate Risks as Early as 1981http://blog.ucsusa.org/exxon-responds-to-revelation-that-company-recognized-climate-risks-as-early-as-1981-791
http://blog.ucsusa.org/exxon-responds-to-revelation-that-company-recognized-climate-risks-as-early-as-1981-791#commentsThu, 09 Jul 2015 20:25:36 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37288The Union of Concerned Scientists broke the news yesterday that Exxon employees were considering how climate change should factor into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction as early as 1981. The reactions, especially from ExxonMobil, have been as interesting as the original revelation.

1981 is well before most people and policymakers were even aware of risks from climate change. Indeed, we’re talking about the same year that IBM introduced its first personal computer and Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 climbed the charts.

It wasn’t until seven years later that NASA scientist James Hansen famously testified before Congress regarding the link between industrial activities and climate change.

We know that fossil fuel companies pay close attention to climate science. Indeed, the email message that revealed this bit of Exxon’s history was from a chemical engineer who worked at the company for years and who went on to contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s landmark assessment reports.

Interestingly, the email itself had been published online in October 2014, but nobody noticed it until my colleague Jayne Piepenburg found it while doing some additional research related to a new UCS report that chronicles the fossil fuel industry’s history of supporting misinformation campaigns on climate change.

The email – and the juxtaposition with the history of misinformation campaigns – has grabbed global headlines and Exxon had some interesting responses to reporters’ questions about it.

A company spokesperson asserted to The Guardian: “We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.” The same spokesperson told Inside Climate News that the company “believes the risk of climate change is clear, and warrants action.”

I wish those statements were true.

Indeed, my first thought when I read that quote was that Exxon supports the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that regularly misrepresents climate science to state legislators and attempts to roll-back clean energy laws. BP has already left the group and Shell might be considering it. Will Exxon leave it, too? I hope they do.

The 1981 revelation sheds more light on an important question: What exactly did the fossil fuel companies know about climate change and when did they know it?

Sharon Eubanks, who led the Department of Justice’s racketeering suit against the tobacco companies, reacted to this news this way when the Climate Investigations Center asked her about it:

“It starts to look like a much longer conspiracy. It’s like what we discovered with tobacco – the more you push back the date of knowledge of the harm, the more you delay any remediation, the more people are affected. So your liability can grow exponentially as the timeline gets longer.”

Additionally, I have to wonder how other researchers and scientists who worked at fossil fuel companies viewed these developments over the years. After all, corporate lobbyists and CEOs often respond to scientific evidence that their products are causing harm by launching misinformation campaigns that are inconsistent with what scientists know to be true. Tobacco is the most notorious example, but academics also point to the asbestos industry, sugar refiners, lead producers and – yes – the fossil fuel industry as other notable examples.

We’ll be sure to keep our members and the public updated as more reactions come in and as more news about the major fossil fuel companies – and their misinformation campaigns – comes to light.

In the meantime, you can enjoy the musical stylings of Miss Dolly Parton:

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/exxon-responds-to-revelation-that-company-recognized-climate-risks-as-early-as-1981-791/feed6The Evidence For How Fossil Fuel Companies Misled Us For Decadeshttp://blog.ucsusa.org/fossil-fuel-industry-social-license-at-risk-786
http://blog.ucsusa.org/fossil-fuel-industry-social-license-at-risk-786#commentsWed, 08 Jul 2015 13:52:13 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=37188My parents instilled two core values in me—tell the truth and if your actions harm others, take responsibility for them. These messages were reinforced when I went to law school and practiced law for almost twenty years; honesty and responsibility are bedrock principles in the law, and significant damage awards are often imposed on those who breach them.

Today, UCS is releasing a report titled “The Climate Deception Dossiers.” This report is a sobering exposé of how major fossil fuel companies have failed to abide by these axioms. They have neither been honest about, nor taken responsibility for, the harms they have caused by extracting and putting into commerce the fossil fuels that now place our climate in grave danger. Instead, either directly or indirectly, through trade and industry groups, they have sown doubt about the science of climate change and repeatedly fought efforts to cut the emissions of dangerous heat-trapping gases.

You’ll see clear evidence that these companies knew for decades that the burning of fossil fuels causes temperature increase. As one of Mobil’s own scientists says in a 1995 memo, “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” (Emphasis added.)

You’ll see that despite this knowledge several of the companies banded together to sow doubt in the public mind. They stated in 1998, for example—even after that internal warning from their own scientists—that “victory will be achieved” when “[a]verage citizens ’understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”

You’ll see that they executed on this strategy by secretly funding contrarian, climate-denying scientists (and reserving the right to approve their work before it was released), creating faux grassroots groups to oppose policies to cut our dependence on fossil fuels, and even forging letters making it appear that well-established groups opposed policies such as the national cap-and-trade bill that was defeated a few years ago.

I have also learned, particularly during my tenure as a public official, about the importance of trust between business and government. As a government official, I was barraged by lobbyists and others who sought to persuade me to take a particular course of action, and provided information that almost always seemed credible on the surface. Who and what could I trust? That depended a lot on the track record of the messenger. So, a track record for honesty and responsibility is an important component of the “social license” that allows corporations to work constructively with government.

I believe that the conduct outlined in the UCS report puts the fossil fuel companies’ social license at risk. And once that social license is gone, it is very hard to get it back. Just look at what happened to tobacco companies after litigation finally pried open the documents that exposed decades of misinformation and deception.

Is it too late to reclaim the social license? Not yet. The world is increasingly focused on climate change, and the international climate conference in Paris at the end of the year offers a last, best chance to make a meaningful down payment on our obligation to future generations.

The fossil fuel companies could seize upon this opportunity as a way to take responsibility for their actions. Some companies have already called upon governments to adopt policies, such as carbon pricing, to cut carbon pollution. The others should follow suit. They can announce that they will not fund or participate in groups that sow doubt about climate science or oppose proven policies to remedy the problem. And they can commit to discussions about compensation, in particular to those in the developing world who have least enjoyed the benefits of fossil-fueled energy, yet ironically face the greatest dangers from runaway temperature increases and sea level rise.

I hope that the Climate Deception Dossiers and increased public pressure will remind fossil fuel company CEOs and boards of directors about these core values. It’s time to tell the truth and engage in solutions.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/fossil-fuel-industry-social-license-at-risk-786/feed12UCS Goes Fossil Freehttp://blog.ucsusa.org/ucs-goes-fossil-free-757
http://blog.ucsusa.org/ucs-goes-fossil-free-757#commentsThu, 18 Jun 2015 19:23:20 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=36816When you work for the Union of Concerned Scientists, you learn quickly that we walk the walk when it comes to caring for the environment. Our offices are all energy efficient. We not only recycle our paper products but compost our leftovers at lunch. And every month feels like “Bike to Work Month.” Above all, we believe it’s important to follow our own advice.

So in 2013, when our Board of Directors realized that our investment portfolio included some holdings in fossil fuel companies, we knew we had to act. While UCS has never directly invested in any fossil fuel companies, we learned that some of our funds, even some of the organization’s so-called “sustainability funds,” included small holdings in fossil fuel companies.

After a thorough review and reinvestment of our assets, I’m proud to announce that we have essentially divested from all fossil fuel companies. Our stock holdings are now more than 98 percent fossil-fuel free (and we’re committed to getting it even lower as more investment options become available). It took some research and a lot of expert advice, but our investment team of board member and advisors from Peirce Park came up with solutions that allowed UCS to divest from those holdings while continuing to use low-cost index funds that manage risk through diversification.

You can do it, too

I want to share our successful divestment experience not only to let our members know, but to flag for other organizations that divestment from fossil fuels is possible. Our experience shows that midsize organizations with conservative investment strategies can take these steps with no material change in risk or return objectives.

To determine our stakes in fossil fuel companies, our board relied on the Fossil Free Indexes LLC list of the top 200 investable companies, which identifies fossil fuel companies by their potential carbon emissions. Another resource is Fossil Free, a project from 350.org.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/ucs-goes-fossil-free-757/feed8Missouri and the Clean Power Plan: Comprehensive State Energy Plan Should Support Compliancehttp://blog.ucsusa.org/missouri-clean-power-plan-comprehensive-state-energy-plan-763
http://blog.ucsusa.org/missouri-clean-power-plan-comprehensive-state-energy-plan-763#commentsThu, 18 Jun 2015 18:27:56 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=36927Like many U.S. states, Missouri is on the cusp of an energy transformation. Missouri has been long dependent on electricity generated predominantly from coal-fired power plants, but a suite of market and political factors are slowly beginning to shift the Show-Me state toward cleaner, lower carbon energy sources.

Set for release later this summer, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) will further curb carbon emissions in Missouri and across the U.S. power sector. At the same time, a comprehensive State Energy Plan now under development by Governor Nixon’s administration offers an excellent opportunity to prioritize renewable energy and energy efficiency in Missouri’s CPP compliance strategy and accelerate the state’s transition to a clean energy economy.

A legacy of coal dependence

For decades, Missouri has been heavily dependent on coal for its power generation. In 2013, coal accounted for 83 percent of the state’s electricity generation—the fifth most coal-dependent among all states (see pie chart). To generate that power, all of the coal must be imported because Missouri has virtually no coal mining production. In 2012, that amounted to more than $1.4 billion leaving the state, primarily to Wyoming.

Missouri is currently among the nation’s most coal-dependent states. Source: EIA

Missouri’s coal dependence also takes a heavy toll on public health, local air and water quality, and of course, in contributing to climate change. Power plants are our nation’s largest source of global warming emissions and Missouri consistently ranks in the top 10 states for power sector carbon emissions. From heat waves to major flooding, global warming is already impacting Missouri communities.

The winds of change

Fortunately, the coal industry’s grip on Missouri’s power supply is slowly beginning to loosen. In 2008, voters approved a renewable electricity standard (RES) that requires Missouri’s electric providers to supply at least 15 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2021.

Missouri’s RES has already helped spur more than 450 megawatts of wind power in the northwest corner of the state, and has driven important economic and environmental benefits. However, this just scratches the surface of how clean energy resources can deliver for Missouri consumers. The state is ranked 14th nationally in terms of wind resource potential and is home to a tremendous amount of potential for solar energy and energy efficiency that remains untapped.

Closing uneconomic coal plants

In addition to investing in more renewables, closing old, inefficient, and uneconomic coal generators is another quick and cost-effective strategy for cleaning up Missouri’s power supply. Ameren Missouri—the state’s largest electric utility—has announced that it will be closing its 564-MW Meramec coal power plant in the next few years. Meramec’s closure joins the nearly 300 coal generating units in 39 states (representing 46,600 MW of power capacity) that have either retired or are scheduled to between 2012 and 2020 thanks to growing competition from cleaner, more affordable energy alternatives. A 2013 UCS analysis identified another 1,635 MW of economically vulnerable coal generators in Missouri alone that should also be considered for retirement.

Making progress toward Clean Power Plan compliance

These sensible commitments to renewable energy and cutting carbon emissions have positioned Missouri well for complying with the EPA’s forthcoming Clean Power Plan.

In fact, a new UCS analysis shows that these existing commitments will put Missouri more than two-thirds of the way towards meeting the 2020 emission reduction benchmarks proposed by the EPA (see bar chart). Thirty additional states are also on track to be more than halfway toward their 2020 benchmarks thanks to existing RES policies, energy efficiency resource standards, and scheduled coal plant retirements.

Missouri needs a comprehensive state energy plan

Missouri’s Projected Progress Toward Meeting its 2020 Benchmarks under the Clean Power Plan. Missouri’s current renewable electricity standard and decision to close uneconomic coal generators are helping to cut carbon emissions and putting the state far along the pathway toward compliance with the Clean Power Plan.

This is all good progress for one of the most coal-dependent states in the nation. But Missouri can and should do more to accelerate its clean energy transition. That starts with Governor Nixon’s administration developing a compliance strategy for fully meeting the Clean Power Plan’s targets by prioritizing investments in renewables and efficiency. And one effective way to ensure that happens is for the state to develop a comprehensive and aggressive State Energy Plan that also prioritizes clean energy development.

One year ago today, Governor Nixon put the wheels in motion for such a plan when he signed Executive Order 14-06, which instructed the Missouri Department of Economic Development’s Division of Energy to develop—through broad stakeholder input—a comprehensive State Energy Plan. A 55-member governor-appointed steering committee representing a broad range of energy interests helped lead the plan’s development; several public hearings were held; and six technical working groups were convened (of which, several of my colleagues participated in) to explore multiple topics on Missouri’s current and potential future energy use.

Policy recommendations

Initially scheduled for release last month, the State Energy Plan has since been delayed to October 15. While delay is not normally good, in this case it could be a positive. Thus far, discussions on the state’s energy plan have not included considerations for the Clean Power Plan. By postponing until after the final rule’s expected release, Governor Nixon’s team now has a golden opportunity to include recommendations directly related to a compliance strategy that makes Missouri a clean energy leader.

To help ensure that happens, here are three recommendations Governor Nixon’s state energy plan needs to include:

Strengthen the Renewable Electricity Standard. Independent analysis has shown that Missouri can cost-effectively exceed its current 15 percent by 2021 RES. Leading states in the Midwest and nationally have established RES targets of at least 25 percent.

Adopt a mandatory Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS). Missouri currently has voluntary goals for energy efficiency, but the state should join leading states and enact a mandatory EERS requiring utilities to reduce electricity demand by 2 percent annually.

Strengthened net metering policy. Missouri’s current policy for incentivizing rooftop solar investments is inadequate. The state should strengthen its net metering policy to expand the program size, increase system capacity limits, and provide monthly credits for excess power at the retail level.

Investing more heavily in renewable energy and energy efficiency offers a smarter, faster, and less risky pathway toward a more affordable, reliable, and diversified electricity system that delivers not just short-term economic and environmental gains, but also achieves the long-term goals of addressing climate change.

Now is the time for Governor Nixon to lead his state toward a clean energy future.

]]>http://blog.ucsusa.org/missouri-clean-power-plan-comprehensive-state-energy-plan-763/feed6Is Fracking Safe Now? What the EPA’s Fracking and Drinking Water Study Really Sayshttp://blog.ucsusa.org/is-fracking-safe-now-what-the-epas-fracking-and-drinking-water-study-really-says-755
http://blog.ucsusa.org/is-fracking-safe-now-what-the-epas-fracking-and-drinking-water-study-really-says-755#commentsFri, 05 Jun 2015 15:01:44 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=36777Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited (and heavily scrutinized) report on drinking water impacts from hydraulic fracturing. The report has made headlines, but anyone following the science around fracking impacts shouldn’t be surprised by the results—that hydraulic fracturing has had adverse effects on drinking water sources in several cases, and that risk for future contamination of drinking water exists through several pathways. Yet, yesterday’s headlines read very differently.

Hydraulic fracturing has adversely impacted drinking water in several places, including Dimock, Pennsylvania shown here.

OK. Fine. This result isn’t surprising if you were following the previous findings around fracking impacts. Whoever said water quality impacts were systemic? This statement struck me as an odd way to showcase the study. This is like a study reporting teen pregnancy rates leading with the headline “Not every teenage woman pregnant.” OK sure, but that wasn’t the key point of the study.

In reality the EPA study “found specific instances where well integrity and waste water management related to hydraulic fracturing activities impacted drinking water resources.” The report also identified several pathways through which the risk of water contamination exists, including spills, improper well construction, and improper disposal of wastewater.

So what would compel the EPA to lead with such a title?

Here we might remind ourselves that the EPA was under heavy scrutiny from external stakeholders for this study. In fact, some companies blocked the agency’s ability to get the industry information it needed for the study.

This also brings to mind the past times we’ve seen the EPA subject to pressure from external forces. The EPA was poised to conduct investigations around water quality concerns in Dimock, Pennsylvania; Pavillion, Wyoming; and Parker County, Texas. In all three cases, the agency backed down from a full investigation following pushback from the companies involved.

The bigger picture

Stepping back and taking a broader look, we should remember the limitations of this study. First, it only looked at past cases of potential contamination. The agency dropped the originally planned prospective studies which would have provided more information and importantly, could have allowed for baseline testing before drilling occurred, an important tool for scientists studying environmental impacts. In addition, the report only looked at one type of fracking risk—that to drinking water—but we know that hydraulic fracturing poses many other risks, including air quality impacts, seismic activity associated with wastewater disposal, and socioeconomic impacts.

Insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.

In short, this study was too little too late. The EPA should have stepped into this space some time ago. The pace of oil and gas development in recent years took many communities by surprise and they were left without the tools and information they needed to safeguard against the risks. I am glad to see the EPA take this important first step toward study and oversight of oil and gas development. And I hope the agency quickly builds on this work. We need more research in this area and I hope the EPA remains rigorous and independent in its studies.

So is fracking safe now?

We need to remember here that the EPA study confirmed risks we know exist around fracking. As I’ve explained before, neither this study nor any scientific study can tell us whether fracking is “safe.” The research can tell us about the risks of activities, but how much risk is acceptable isn’t a question that science can answer. People, communities, and policy makers need to (and have) made those decisions. But they can make those decisions better if they have access to more information about the science. That’s why I’m hoping this study is merely the beginning and the EPA will continue to be engaged in the research and oversight around oil and gas development for the sake of the communities on the frontlines.